AnoChem: Prediction of chemical structural abnormalities based on machine learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
drug design aims to rationally discover novel and potent compounds while reducing experimental costs during the drug development stage. Despite the numerous generative models that have been developed, few successful cases of drug design utilizing generative models have been reported. One of the most common challenges is designing compounds that are not synthesizable or realistic. Therefore, methods capable of accurately assessing the chemical structures proposed by generative models for drug design are needed. In this study, we present AnoChem, a computational framework based on deep learning designed to assess the likelihood of a generated molecule being real. AnoChem achieves an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve score of 0.900 for distinguishing between real and generated molecules. We utilized AnoChem to evaluate and compare the performances of several generative models, using other metrics, namely SAscore and Fréschet ChemNet distance (FCD). AnoChem demonstrates a strong correlation with these metrics, validating its effectiveness as a reliable tool for assessing generative models. The source code for AnoChem is available at https://github.com/CSB-L/AnoChem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".